The amazing life of parliamentary staff
In an interview with Times Radio last week, MP Steve Baker told how during a period of severe depression he relied on his staff for emotional support, including asking the “youngest member of staff” to “come into his office” to “ask him stupid questions.” to help him through one of his lowest points.
Sympathizing with his predicament, it seems clear that a ‘young staff member’ is not suited to provide such support to an MP, and in his subsequent comments he said that ‘there are no staff[er] should see their deputy like that.” But from my time in Parliament, it reminded me of the workplace dynamics that are typical of MPs’ offices but have no equivalent elsewhere.
During my twenty years I have worked for various MPs (Labour) as a staff member, secretary and researcher, and have met dozens of other parliamentary staff from different parties, both then and afterwards. In my experience, most MPs and their staff are hard-working and dedicated public servants, and many MPs are also good employers – my first boss in Parliament was like that.
But while I’ve never had the kind of experience Steve Baker described, I’ve come to understand how dysfunctional working environments can be in MPs’ offices – sometimes because a minority of politicians choose to bully and harass their own staff, but more often because – for a combination of the stresses of being an MP and how their offices end up being staffed.
‘Perfect time’ to install duck nesting tubes, BASC says
Firearms licensing in crisis, BASC tells parliamentary committee inquiry
Being a Member of Parliament is a unique role, but in terms of seniority it is perhaps equivalent to being a CEO or a senior director, and most external meetings, even with backbench MPs, will be at CEO level. And yet, their offices are most often staffed by people who hold their first job after graduating from university and receive a starting salary.
However, their responsibilities can be overwhelming – as a caseworker I worked on complex cases for people at imminent risk of homelessness and deportation, as a secretary I dealt with hundreds of emails and meeting requests every week, and as a researcher, I met with an interest group, worked on parliamentary speeches at short notice and helped scrutinize legislation. I had no special training to do any of this and my highest salary during this time was £27,500 (in 2018). It was an important job, and many of the younger staff were doing it very well. But it’s a strange fact about our democracy that so much of it is done by people in their twenties.
Parliament still has no real human resources department, and staff are hired directly by MPs, who have full authority to decide who to hire and fire. The new Independent Complaints System (ICGS) means that MPs who mistreat their staff face consequences, but it’s not possible to complain about an MP you currently work for as you have to continue working for them while you both go through the process handling complaints, which in any other field would be considered a personnel nightmare. Many employees who experience abuse simply leave their jobs with nowhere else to go, and at this point it is unclear whether the ICGS has improved the problems of bullying and harassment, or simply glossed over them.
But even apart from the issue of staff welfare, politicians – and British politics in general – may be better served by a cadre of more experienced (and better paid) parliamentary staff, with careers and professional specializations who have a real understanding of the demands of the role of an MP. , and the attitude, professional judgment, and confidence to provide appropriate support and challenge bad ideas and bad behavior when needed.
Of course, there should be roles for young people too, for whom working in Parliament can be a fantastic opportunity. But in a high-pressure, understaffed environment, working for a politician you can really look up to, whose patronage can make or break your career, it’s not surprising that some junior staff with no experience of professional standards end up putting up with behavior that run the gamut from unreasonable expectations and a complete lack of boundaries to the worst cases of bullying and harassment.
That’s bad for staff, but it’s also arguably bad for MPs, many of whom come to Parliament with good intentions but little understanding of how to effectively lead a team, navigate arcane parliamentary procedure or manage the endless pressure on their diaries (100 queries on meetings a typical week). It’s a life of long hours, endless scrutiny, abuse from the public, total career instability and working weeks spent away from family (and on weekends they’re likely to attend events, conduct constituency operations and campaign, to try to keep his job, instead of recuperating at home). This is what MPs sign up for and it is also a great privilege, but it is not surprising that some struggle and it is their staff who can end up bearing the brunt of the burden in a way that they are unable to cope with or push back.
One solution to this problem probably involves the least popular proposal in British politics, namely more money for MPs’ expenses. But parliamentary staff are underpaid relative to their duties and their international equivalents – US congressional staff can expect to earn double or triple what they earn, and the roles attract senior professionals who stay for years. And while special advisers who work with senior politicians are usually better paid and have more experience, most MPs outside the front benches are likely to be supported by much younger staff.
Many parliamentary staff leave before their thirties, meaning that from a cohort of seasoned professionals who understand how parliament works and how MPs can most effectively influence various causes, many end up working as lobbyists or consultants (guilty), partly partly because the staff role doesn’t pay enough once you’re in your thirties and partly because they’re usually younger. But surely working in Parliament is more important than much of what lobbyists do, and yet the pay and working conditions mean that the former is seen as a stepping stone to the latter.
And while I’ve come across some stories of appalling behavior by MPs, I still think that most go into politics to make a difference and that their work, often unsung, can have a real impact on the lives of the people they represent, especially at the electoral level. district. But if their work is so important, it is certainly worth considering how Parliament can improve the work, not only in terms of preventing abuse, which is vital, but also ensuring that MPs’ offices work well, so that they can do their jobs and interact with their components as efficiently as possible.
Rather than simply dealing with a breach of the rules after it has occurred, Parliament needs to consider how to bring in more knowledgeable people at all levels. A number of reforms could help: many staff are calling for an end to the practice of being solely hired by an MP, so while MPs will still have a say in who they hire, they won’t be responsible for management and staffing, which may not be a good thing either use their time.
This idea seems reasonable to me, and although it may not be a popular argument, I would also argue for a modest increase in staff pay, an expectation that MPs hire experienced professionals, at least for certain positions, better management training for them, and more appropriate support for all who struggle, could make Parliament work much better – and stop the situations described by Steve Baker last week.
